Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The Apex Court in Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal Patni , considering this aspect held that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 226 can be exercised in respect of any proceeding before any Court or Tribunal within jurisdiction of the High Court by issuing writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

6. The Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. , considering the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226/227 held that it is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and judicial review is permissible of judicial decision. The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution. The power vested in the High Court under Article 227 to exercise judicial superintendence over the decision of all Courts and Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction is also a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Apex Court considering the question of the power of superintendence of High Court over the Tribunals held that all decisions of the Tribunals rendered in the cases for which they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. However, the Tribunals will continue to act as the only Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted, and it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Apex Court held that the High Courts would have writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution over the Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution. In Para 99 of the judgment it is held that the Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted.

99. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Courts under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned fails. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5 (6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.

(Emphasis supplied)

10. The Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. , considering a similar question held thus:

29. The Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 15 dealt with the nature of power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution and the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227. It was held that the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, forming its integral and essential feature, which cannot be tampered with much less taken away even by constitutional amendment, not to speak of a parliamentary legislation. A recent Division Bench decision by the Delhi High Court (Dalveer Bhandari and H.R. Malhotra, JJ.) in Govind v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 16, makes an in-depth survey of decided cases including almost all the leading decisions by this Court and holds:

74. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be whittled down, nullified, curtailed, abrogated, diluted or taken either by judicial pronouncement or by the legislative enactment or even by the amendment of the Constitution. The power of judicial review is an inherent part of the basic structure and it cannot be abrogated without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution". The essence of constitutional and legal principles, relevant to the issue at hand, has been correctly summed up by the Division Bench of the High Court and we record our approval of the same.